[SoConPubbie]

But look at what Walker just did with RTW in Wisconsin.....he never ran on changing RTW - he knew he had to make inroads into the public sector first. He did make those inroads, and then happily signed RTW a few weeks ago.

And he knew he probably couldn’t eat the entire elephant in one gulp on gov unions either. I’m a big Cruz guy for a number of reasons, but I’ve no problem with what Walker’s done vis a vis unions.

My take is different on this.

Initially he ran away from this fight, but was backed into a corner because his Republican led legislature dropped the bill on his desk. He even went so far in one article I read to state the GOP in his state needed to keep their members in line and not push RTW.

[SoConPubbie]

That doesn’t mean I don’t support him for signing the RTW bill.

It was the right thing to do and I am glad he came around on this issue.

[C. Edmund Wright]

To clarify my take on this: You and I are irrelevant to union reform in Wisconsin - because we don't vote there, we don't live there, and we don't have any economic interests (at least I do not) in Wisconsin. Thus, as irrelevant, we are free to espouse whatever views we want, because our views simply do not matter.

You choose to hold the purist line, judging Walker against the perfect. I choose to take a more pragmatic approach, and judge Walker against A: every other governor in Wisconsin history and B: every current governor everywhere vis a vis unions and C: results. He wins A hands down, he wins B probably, though some others are doing good things, and he wins C. Some hypothetical perfection is just not part of my equation.

SO: to compromise for practicality or not? Some on FR want to answer this question with a 100% purist answer. That's not reality. It's case by case. Some compromises are indefensible compromises of principle, and some are strategic ways to get some of your principles upheld. I think Walker is the latter. I still prefer Cruz, but I don't have to demean Walker on unions to reach that conclusion.